Openai/691a45a6-8ed0-8010-a7d9-24657a41a9aa

This conversation was exported from ChatGPT

gpt-5-1

User: Summarize for me the talk why 1820 by hyrum smith

Summarize for me the talk why 1820 by hyrum smith

Assistant: Good question.

Good question. Here’s a summary of Hyrum W. Smith’s talk “Why 1820”, plus its main arguments and some critiques.

1. Purpose of the Talk - Hyrum Smith gives a devotional talk (delivered at Ricks College, Sept 27, 1988) explaining why he believes the Church of Jesus Christ was restored in 1820. colterreed.net - He focuses on two questions: (a) why a Restoration was needed, and (b) why it happened when it did — specifically in 1820. colterreed.net

1. The Apostasy - Smith argues that after the death of the apostles, the true Church gradually fell into apostasy — corruption, doctrinal error, and loss of revelation. colterreed.net - He traces a timeline of Church history, suggesting that early Christian leadership (in Rome, for example) deviated from original authority. colterreed.net - He specifically discusses a figure named “Linus”: in his narrative, one Linus was bishop, but then a deacon Linus took over, and was eventually killed under persecution. Smith uses this to argue that authorized, true leadership quietly disappeared. colterreed.net
2. Why 1820 Was the Right Time - According to Smith, 1820 was “the only time that [the Restoration] could possibly have survived on the planet.” newartdirection.com - He reasons that by 1820 the world was spiritually and socially “prepared” — there was enough instability, enough doctrinal confusion, and a need for a fresh restoration. colterreed.net - He draws a contrast with earlier times (e.g., the Reformation). He suggests that if Joseph Smith or someone similar had claimed a vision in, say, 1512, the institutional church (e.g., the Catholic Church) would have crushed him. Scribd - Smith also points to later key dates: 1830 (when the Church was formally organized) is one he asks listeners to note. colterreed.net
3. Testimony and Faith - Throughout, Smith weaves his personal testimony: he believes in the First Vision (Joseph Smith’s vision of the Father and the Son) and in the necessity of revelation. colterreed.net - He emphasizes that revelation (not human authority) is the true “rock” upon which Christ’s Church should be built — a foundation that had been lost but needed to be restored. colterreed.net
4. Implications - The talk is meant to bolster faith in the Restoration: not just that Joseph Smith saw God, but why that event matters historically. - Smith encourages humility, faith, and seeking personal revelation, arguing that anyone who earnestly seeks can receive divine knowledge. Church of Jesus Christ

- Some historians and listeners note that Smith’s historical narrative is controversial. For example, the idea of “two Linuses” (bishop Linus and deacon Linus) is not clearly supported by mainstream historical scholarship. Reddit

• There are questions about chronology: critics argue that Smith’s talk compresses or distorts early Church history in ways that aren’t fully supported by academic sources. Reddit
• On the First Vision itself, some point out that there’s limited contemporary documentation for the 1820 date. Wikipedia
• Because this is a devotional talk, it’s more faith-based than strictly academic: Smith’s goal is to testify and persuade spiritually, not to produce a peer-reviewed historical paper.

- It provides a coherent spiritual framework for understanding why the Restoration happened when it did.

• It appeals to the idea that God works in “cycles” or “dispensations”, not continuously through one unbroken institution.
• It encourages individuals to seek their own testimony and to value personal revelation.

If you like, I can compare Hyrum Smith’s “Why 1820” narrative with what mainstream historical scholarship (both secular and LDS) says about the First Vision and the early apostasy — do you want me to do that?

User: Do you think his argument is defensible?

Do you think his argument is defensible? Do you think it is more likely that a great apostasy occurred, as defined by Hyrum? (As opposed to no great apostasy)

Assistant: Short answer: his argument is emotionally compelling for someone already inside the Latter-day Saint framework, but it’…

Short answer: his argument is emotionally compelling for someone already inside the Latter-day Saint framework, but it’s not strong as a historical argument. If you treat it as a claim about verifiable events in late-antique Christianity, it doesn’t hold up well.

Let me walk through why, piece by piece, without dunking on anyone’s faith.

Parts of it can be defended as theological interpretation, but not as historical causation.

He relies on a chain of claims:

• the apostolic church had a very specific organizational structure identical to modern LDS structures,
• that structure disappeared early,
• therefore divine authority left the earth,
• therefore a full restoration was required,
• and 1820 had the right political conditions.

The trouble is that every link in that chain is debatable when you look at actual first- and second-century documents. The early Christian world was wildly diverse, more like a sprawling ecosystem than a single fragile vine that snapped when one bishop died. The idea that “true authority” evaporated in some clean moment—like a switch being flicked off—doesn’t map well to what historians see in the record.

There’s also the Linus story. Smith’s argument hinges on a very particular sequence of leadership confusion in Rome. That reconstruction isn’t supported by mainstream scholarship. It’s one of those claims that circulates in devotional talks but evaporates the moment you go looking for primary sources.

So as a historical model, his version of events lacks evidentiary traction. As a faith model, it does what it’s trying to do—explain why a restoration is needed.

It depends on what you mean by “apostasy.”

If you define apostasy the way Hyrum Smith does— the complete loss of divine authority, priesthood keys, correct doctrine, and the structure of Christ’s original church—then, purely on historical grounds, that scenario is not more likely.

Why?

Because the historical evidence doesn’t support the idea of a pristine, uniform original church that then fell off a cliff. The earliest Christian communities were already varied on doctrine, leadership structure, and practice. The New Testament itself contains disputes, competing teachings, and evolving interpretations. That suggests development rather than catastrophic loss.

From that angle, the “Great Apostasy” becomes a theological lens, not a historical event you could point to.

If instead you define apostasy more broadly— Christianity drifted, fought, adapted, disagreed, reshaped doctrine, absorbed philosophical influences, and became something different from its earliest forms— then yes, that absolutely happened. Every historian agrees Christianity evolved dramatically.

But that’s different from the LDS-specific claim that God’s authority vanished and had to be restored in upstate New York.

The question you’re brushing up against is interesting:

Did Christianity break, or did it grow?

Hyrum Smith’s talk assumes a break. Most historians see growth—messy, uneven, sometimes ugly growth, but still continuity, not collapse.

Whether you interpret that growth as legitimate or illegitimate is ultimately a theological call, not something the historical record settles.

If you want, we can trace the specific LDS claims about authority loss (priesthood, apostolic succession, corruption, councils, persecution) and see how each one fares against what’s known from history. That’s where the analysis gets really interesting.

User: So LDS assume a break, Catholics assume a growth

So LDS assume a break, Catholics assume a growth

Assistant: That’s essentially the axis of disagreement, yes — but the real difference is why each side tells the story the way it …

That’s essentially the axis of disagreement, yes — but the real difference is why each side tells the story the way it does.

Let me unpack it in a way that keeps the logic clean.

The Latter-day Saint worldview assumes:

1. Jesus established a very specific church structure. Think: clear hierarchy, priesthood offices, authority tied to individuals.
2. That structure depended on living apostles with unique “keys.”
3. When those apostles died, no one on earth held the same authority.
4. Christianity kept going, but minus the essential ingredient. It still talked about Jesus, still produced theology, but it lacked divine authorization.
5. Result: a “Great Apostasy,” not in the sense that all goodness vanished, but that the authorized church vanished.
6. Solution: God restarts the system through Joseph Smith.

This is a clean, mechanical model. It only works if early Christianity was relatively uniform and highly centralized under apostolic authority. That’s why LDS teachings often portray the first-century church as tightly organized and the second century as a sudden free-for-all.

In Catholic (and Orthodox) thought, the continuity is not a fragile line that snaps when the last apostle dies. It’s more like a living organism:

1. Jesus establishes a community, not a blueprint. The details develop as the community learns and adapts.
2. Authority is handed down through apostolic succession. The successors aren’t apostles in the same sense, but they preserve continuity.
3. Diversity in early Christianity is normal, not evidence of collapse.
4. Doctrines mature through councils, debate, and sometimes major course corrections.
5. No single moment counts as “the end” of the true church. Even deep corruption or political entanglement affects individuals, not the church’s continuity as a whole.
6. So by their view, the Church of the 200s, 500s, 1000s, and 1500s is still the same entity, changing but unbroken.

This model only works if early Christianity always was varied and evolving — which the historical record supports much more clearly.

Each system is trying to solve a different theological problem.

The LDS model solves: “If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, why don’t modern churches look like the New Testament? And why do non-Christians outnumber Christians?” Answer: because the original church ended and required restoration.

The Catholic/Orthodox model solves: “If Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, what happened after the apostles died?” Answer: the Church continued, even if bruised and confused.

Once you see these as two different theories of Christian history, the debate becomes cleaner:

• LDS: The story is discontinuous — rupture, then re-creation.
• Catholic/Orthodox: The story is continuous — development over time.

The historical evidence tilts toward the continuity model, because the early Christian world never looked as uniform and centralized as the LDS model assumes.

But the restoration model isn’t trying to match modern historiography; it’s trying to make theological sense of why Joseph Smith’s story would be necessary.

If you want, I can map out exactly where the historical record diverges from the typical LDS “Great Apostasy” timeline — it’s pretty revealing.

User: On a scale on 1 to 10, provide a rating for how probable each option is

On a scale on 1 to 10, provide a rating for how probable each option is

Assistant: Here’s a clean, candid way to quantify the two models based strictly on what the historical record can actually sustain.

Here’s a clean, candid way to quantify the two models based strictly on what the historical record can actually sustain. I’m not grading the theology — only the historical probability of each scenario as an explanation of what happened between the first and fourth centuries.

I’ll define the two options the way you’ve been using them:

A. LDS Model: A complete loss of divine authority, original church structure, and continuity after the apostles — essentially a rupture. B. Catholic/Orthodox Model: Doctrinal development, organizational evolution, and messy continuity — essentially growth, not collapse.

Now the numbers.

Probability: 2 / 10

Why the number is low:

• The earliest Christian communities were diverse from day one; they didn’t start as a single uniform institution that later fractured. • There’s continuous documentation of bishops, liturgy, and doctrinal development across the second, third, and fourth centuries. • Nothing in the historical record shows a moment when “all authority vanished” or where Christianity rebooted itself with no chain of leadership. • The LDS claim is theological rather than historical: the loss of “priesthood keys” is not something historians can detect in evidence.

A 2 out of 10 means: possible in a metaphysical sense, but very weakly supported in historical terms.

Probability: 8 / 10

Why it’s high:

• Every scrap of surviving evidence — letters, sermons, liturgy, archaeology, martyr narratives, councils, internal disputes — points to continuous communities evolving over time. • Christian structures (bishops, presbyters, deacons, Eucharistic worship) can be traced generation to generation. • The diversity in doctrine isn’t evidence of collapse; it’s evidence of ongoing debate in a still-functioning community. • There is no detectable “gap” in leadership or worship continuity between the apostolic era and later centuries.

An 8 out of 10 means: strongly supported — not perfectly clean, but consistent with what historians observe.

History isn’t math.

A theological claim can in principle be true even if it leaves no trace in records. So neither model gets a 0. And even the continuity model can’t get a 10 because we don’t have perfect documentation of every community everywhere.

But if you’re asking, “Which scenario is the most consistent with known historical evidence?” — the numbers above reflect that.

If you want, I can drill into one specific part of the LDS Apostasy model — like priesthood authority, early church offices, or doctrinal corruption — and show how each fares against first- and second-century sources. That tends to clarify the picture.

User: Create the most charitable and steel man argument for the great apostasy from the LDS perspective, and rate it on scale…

Create the most charitable and steel man argument for the great apostasy from the LDS perspective, and rate it on scale from 1 - 10. Do the same with the Catholic model

Assistant: Here’s a full steel-man version of each model, written as if by its most rigorous and philosophically sharp defender.

Here’s a full steel-man version of each model, written as if by its most rigorous and philosophically sharp defender. After each one, I’ll give a probability score based strictly on historical evidence, not theological commitments.

I’ll keep assumptions explicit so the reasoning is clear.

###

Christ established a church whose defining feature was divinely authorized leadership transmitted through a specific gift: apostolic authority (priesthood keys). These keys were not identical to ordinary Christian leadership or teaching ability. They were a unique stewardship given to the Twelve and a few others.

After the apostles’ deaths, the surviving communities continued to worship Christ sincerely, but did not possess the same charismatic, revelatory, and governing authority that had defined the original leadership. With no mechanism to perpetuate apostolic authority indefinitely, the Church gradually lost:

• unified revelatory governance • authoritative canon-defining power • access to certain spiritual gifts once tied to apostolic office • the original structural pattern of the Church

Meanwhile, external pressures (Roman persecution, doctrinal controversies, political entanglement) accelerated institutional drift. Over the second and third centuries, Christianity evolved into a philosophically sophisticated institution, but no longer the same organism Christ founded, because the indispensable ingredient — living apostles with divine commissioning — was missing.

Under this model, the Great Apostasy isn’t about total corruption. It’s about discontinuity of God-authorized leadership. Christianity persisted, but the “authorized version” did not.

Thus, in LDS thought, the long, slow fading of apostolic authority made a later restoration not just plausible but necessary.

• Explains the disappearance of public prophecy, oracles, and open-canon revelation after the first century.

• Fits the theological expectation that Christ’s church must have authority tied to divinely chosen individuals, not just communal consensus. • Explains why later Christianity diverged dramatically in structure and doctrine from the New Testament, not just in detail but in kind. • Takes seriously the lack of universal early mechanisms for replacing apostles. • Provides a coherent reason for a restoration that produces a recognizable structure of offices.

4 / 10

That’s higher than earlier ratings because this steel-man version avoids vulnerable claims (e.g., total collapse) and focuses on a quiet loss of revelatory governance — something history can’t fully disprove. Still, it’s limited by the lack of evidence for a pristine, uniform apostolic structure that suddenly went missing.

###

Christ founded a community, not a finished system. Its essence was a living communion, with authority exercised by people chosen by the apostles and accepted by the local churches. The apostles expected organic adaptation: the Spirit would guide the community into “all truth” over time, not freeze it in its first-century form.

Apostolic succession is not a magic “key” but a relational continuation of the original community’s teaching, sacraments, and worship. As communities spread, local variations emerged, but all were held together by shared Eucharist, bishops, and scripture.

Controversy and diversity were signs of growth, not decay. Councils, liturgies, canons, and creeds arose as the Church engaged its intellectual world. The second- and third-century Fathers did not view themselves as inventing Christianity but clarifying and protecting an inherited pattern.

Even periods of corruption or poor leadership did not break the chain, because the community, not the individual bishop, is the bearer of continuity. The Holy Spirit keeps the church linked to Christ across centuries of cultural change.

Thus, the Catholic model treats Christian history as development with identity, much like a person who grows from infancy to adulthood: the forms change, but the organism remains the same.

• Matches the documentary and archaeological record of continuous Christian communities from the first century onward.

• Explains diversity without requiring rupture. • Accounts for the rise of the canon and creeds as coherent responses to real doctrinal crises. • Models authority in a way that aligns with how early churches actually operated (local, communal, bishop-centered). • Makes sense of long-term institutional survival across persecution, heresies, schisms, and politics.

9 / 10

This model aligns with nearly everything historians observe: continuity of worship, leadership lists, doctrinal disputes, letters, sermons, councils, martyr acts, etc. The remaining uncertainty comes from gaps in the record and the inherently theological claim that continuity is divinely protected.

LDS steel-man: 4 / 10

Catholic steel-man: 9 / 10

Both are internally coherent when expressed in their strongest form. The decisive factor is simply that the Catholic model fits the actual historical trajectory unusually well, while the LDS model requires a hidden discontinuity that leaves very little trace in the evidence.

If you want, we can walk through specific “hinge points” (like succession, canon formation, spiritual gifts, persecution, or doctrinal divergence) and see how each model handles them. That’s where the contrast gets even sharper.

User: It seems like to believe the LDS model, you first has to accept their theological framework

It seems like to believe the LDS model, you first has to accept their theological framework

Assistant: You’ve put your finger on the structural issue.

You’ve put your finger on the structural issue.

Yes — to find the LDS Apostasy model persuasive, you almost always have to start inside the LDS theological framework. The historical evidence alone won’t push you toward it. Once you grant the framework, the model becomes coherent. Without that framework, it looks unlikely.

Let me lay out why.

It assumes:

• the early church was organized with offices identical in function to modern LDS priesthood offices • divine authority was a transmissible, quantifiable “key” held by individuals • once those key-holders died without clear successors, authority vanished • the Christian community without keys cannot be the true church, even if it retains faith in Christ

Those assumptions are theological, not historical. Historians can’t verify that “keys” existed in the metaphysical sense the LDS model needs.

So if someone starts from the historical data and asks, “What happened to early Christianity?”, the natural conclusion is continuity-with-change, not rupture.

The LDS model requires you to believe:

“There was a loss of the most important thing, but the loss left almost no historical footprint.”

This is possible — but you need the theological backdrop to make it compelling.

For someone inside LDS theology, the idea of a total loss of divine authority is attractive because it answers:

• Why no other church looks like the New Testament church • Why revelation and prophecy seemed to fade historically • Why a modern prophet (Joseph Smith) could legitimately appear • Why ordinances needed re-performing • Why divine authority must be restored rather than inherited

Outside that theology, those aren’t problems that demand a rupture as their solution.

Continuity-with-development fits:

• how communities normally evolve • what the early writings show • how ancient disputes were actually handled • how bishops and liturgy emerge over time • how doctrines mature organically

You don’t need to believe anything metaphysical for this model to make sense as a historical account.

This is why even non-believing historians tend to agree with the broad Catholic/Orthodox sketch (minus the divine protection part).

Once you already believe:

• God works through exclusive authority • that authority disappeared • a new prophet is needed to reintroduce it • Joseph Smith is that prophet

…then the Great Apostasy is not only plausible — it’s necessary.

But that’s a theological circle: you accept the Apostasy because you accept the Restoration, and you accept the Restoration because you accept the Apostasy.

You can break the circle only by stepping outside the system and asking which model the historical evidence supports.

From the outside-in, the LDS model looks theologically coherent but historically weak.

From the inside-out, it looks necessary and elegant.

That gap is why people inside and outside the LDS tradition talk past each other on this issue.

If you'd like, I can unpack the strongest argument an LDS apologist might offer for why their view should be considered independently plausible — it’s an interesting exercise in comparative theology.

User: Who do you think would win a debate between Jacob Hansen and Joe Heschmeyer on this topic?

Who do you think would win a debate between Jacob Hansen and Joe Heschmeyer on this topic?

Assistant: Both are sharp, but they operate in different modes, and that matters a lot for this topic.

Both are sharp, but they operate in different modes, and that matters a lot for this topic.

To give you a fair, evidence-based assessment, here’s the dynamic as it would likely play out if the debate were judged on substance, historical grounding, and argumentative rigor, not audience predisposition.

I’ll keep this grounded in what each of them demonstrably does well.

Heschmeyer is a former lawyer turned Catholic apologist who specializes in:

• early Church history • patristics (writings of early Christian theologians) • apostolic succession • continuity between the ancient and modern Church • legal-style argumentation, meaning structured, sourced, and anticipatory of objections

He’s extremely familiar with first- and second-century sources, which is exactly where the LDS Great Apostasy model is most vulnerable.

He tends to win debates by:

• pressing historical citations • exposing logical inconsistencies • challenging definitions (e.g., “What evidence would count as loss of authority?”) • showing smooth continuity in the record

He doesn’t rely much on emotional appeal; he relies on evidence density.

Jacob Hansen (from LDS “Thoughtful Faith” circles) is:

• rhetorically polished • quick on his feet • good at reframing and simplifying complex LDS claims • confident and charismatic on camera • experienced at responding to ex-LDS critics • skilled at making LDS positions seem reasonable to Latter-day Saints and sympathetic outsiders

He’s strongest when the topic involves:

• philosophy of religion • interpreting revelation • responding to objections about Joseph Smith • internal coherence of LDS theology

He is less strong when pinned down to strict historical data from 100–300 AD, because LDS frameworks rely more on theological interpretation than hard documentation.

If the debate is judged by historical accuracy and evidentiary rigor:

→ Joe Heschmeyer wins. Probably decisively.

He has far more command of the primary sources that matter for this question (Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Didache, Eusebius, etc.). The early record overwhelmingly supports continuity of Christian communities, bishops, liturgy, and structure.

LDS-style apostasy arguments inevitably rely on:

• theological claims not visible in the historical record • assumed loss of “keys” that leaves no textual trace • reading discontinuity into periods that show continuity

Heschmeyer would press those points relentlessly.

→ Jacob Hansen probably wins.

He’s better at:

• reframing the debate in categories LDS members understand • neutralizing pressure with confidence • shifting to meta-theological claims (e.g., “What would you expect after persecution burned records?”, “How do you prove the absence of a metaphysical key?”, “Why trust post-apostolic structures?”) • making LDS Christianity look like a plausible alternative story

He wouldn't win on hard data, but he might win hearts of an LDS-leaning or mixed audience.

→ Heschmeyer wins by a wide margin.

Because the Catholic model tracks overwhelmingly better with known history.

Joe Heschmeyer wins on substance and evidence.

Jacob Hansen performs well rhetorically but is boxed in by the data.

This is similar to how debates usually go when one side is arguing a model that rests on metaphysical claims about authority, and the other side is arguing from documented historical continuity.

If you want, I can break down exactly which arguments Heschmeyer would likely press, and how Hansen’s strongest responses would attempt to counter them, so you can see the tactical flow of such a debate.

User: Sure thing.

Sure thing. Also touch on what best argument Jacob will provide offensively.

Assistant: Let’s map this out like two smart players entering a chess match: each has a preferred style, certain openings, a few t…

Let’s map this out like two smart players entering a chess match: each has a preferred style, certain openings, a few traps, and a couple of positions they simply cannot defend without shifting the game.

I’ll break it down into three pieces:

1. What Heschmeyer will press hardest
2. How Hansen will defend
3. What Hansen’s best offensive argument actually is

This gives you a sense of how the debate would really unfold under pressure.

Heschmeyer’s instincts—and background—push him toward datapoints from the first two centuries, because that is where the LDS model is weakest and the continuity model is strongest.

Here are the specific arguments he would hammer:

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD) is the big weapon here.

Ignatius talks constantly about:

• a single bishop in each city • presbyters (elders) and deacons • Eucharistic unity under the bishop • obedience to the bishop as obedience to God • schism as a break from legitimate authority

This is devastating to the LDS rupture model because it shows a structured hierarchy while the apostles were still alive or just died. No sign of a collapse. No sign of fragmentation into “apostasy mode.”

Ignatius is the anti-apostasy witness.

Heschmeyer would cite:

• Clement of Rome • Irenaeus (who explicitly names the bishops of Rome from Peter → his own day) • Eusebius’ early church histories • Lists of bishops from Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, Rome, North Africa

This undercuts the idea of a leadership collapse or disappearance of ordained authority.

If the LDS model requires a break, Heschmeyer will show an uninterrupted record.

This is a killer line of attack:

If the Great Apostasy occurred by 100–120 AD:

• Who preserved the New Testament? • Who transmitted the Gospels? • Who decided which books were inspired? • Who preserved the manuscripts Joseph Smith said were divinely translated?

If the “apostate church” curated the scriptures faithfully, why assume it lost authority but kept revelation intact?

That tension is extremely hard for an LDS apologist to dissolve.

He’ll push this point relentlessly:

“Show me in the historical record where the keys disappear. Show me the change, the event, the document, the evidence.”

No LDS apologist can meet that demand with hard data, because the claim is supernatural.

This creates a scoring advantage for Heschmeyer, because debates tend to favor demonstrable claims over metaphysical ones.

Hansen is rhetorically agile; he won’t try to beat historians at their game. Instead, he’ll do three things LDS apologists do well:

He’ll argue something like:

• Christianity after the apostles is doctrinally chaotic. • Competing christologies, gnostic influence, disputes over authority. • Councils arise precisely because unity was lost.

His framing: “Continuity of institution doesn’t equal continuity of divine authority.”

Even if it doesn’t prove apostasy, it muddies the waters.

Hansen will turn the discussion philosophical:

“What defines the true church? Continuity of community, or continuity of God-given authority?”

By reframing the debate away from “documentary evidence” into “conceptual necessity,” he takes pressure off the historical weakness of the LDS model.

He’ll claim apostolic succession lacks:

• explicit scriptural definition • a clear universal mechanism • early universally accepted rules • unbroken procedural uniformity

He may say:

“Succession is assumed backwardly from later Catholicism—it’s not in the earliest Christian DNA.”

Even if Heschmeyer can counter this historically, Hansen will make the LDS view sound reasonable.

If Hansen wants to win ground rather than just defend, he has only one truly strong offensive line:

The Catholic model cannot explain why public revelation stopped.**

If he’s smart, he says something like:

“Your model requires you to explain why Christ’s church—guided by apostles—suddenly stopped receiving public revelation, prophecy, visions, and new scripture.

If the Holy Spirit continues guiding the Church, why did revelation end?

Why no new books of scripture after the first century? Why no new apostles with genuine prophetic authority? Why the dramatic shift from charismatic Christianity to institutional Christianity?”

This is clever because it flips the burden of discontinuity onto the Catholic model.

Catholics can give an answer, but it’s abstract:

“Public revelation ended because the deposit of faith was complete.”

Hansen can strike back:

“That’s circular. How do you know it was complete? Because the institutions you say were authoritative said so. But those institutions are precisely what is in question.”

This is his strongest punch, because it spotlights a real transition in Christian history that Catholics treat as theological necessity, not historical inevitability.

A debate judge who values philosophical consistency over historical documentation might see this as a real point in Hansen’s favor.

If judged on:

Historical evidence → Heschmeyer wins He can bury the rupture model under mountains of first- and second-century sources.

Philosophical framing → Hansen keeps the debate competitive By attacking Catholic assumptions about revelation, scripture, and authority.

Audience bias → predictable outcome LDS audiences feel Hansen “makes sense." Catholic audiences would think Heschmeyer crushed it. Neutral academic audiences: continuity wins clearly.

If you want, I can sketch a mock opening statement for each man — fully in their styles — to show how the debate would sound as well as how it would score.

User: Let’s follow the line of debate if Jacob were to pull the offensive line you suggest.

Let’s follow the line of debate if Jacob were to pull the offensive line you suggest.

Assistant: Let’s walk the likely debate path if Jacob takes the strongest offensive LDS line:

Let’s walk the likely debate path if Jacob takes the strongest offensive LDS line: “Catholicism itself depends on missing data, late sources, and unprovable metaphysical claims. So if Catholicism is allowed ambiguity, LDS claims must be allowed ambiguity too.”

Think of this as the best chess line Jacob could play. I’ll trace the exchange move-by-move, showing where each side lands.

1. Jacob’s Opening Offensive

Jacob begins not by defending LDS history but by attacking the Catholic epistemic model:

Jacob: “Catholicism relies on an unbroken line of bishops, but the historical record of the first- and second-century episcopacy is patchy. You don’t have hard documentation of Peter appointing a line of bishops with modern Catholic theology. You infer continuity from incomplete evidence. But LDS claims rely on the same inference process: that God maintains real authority through revelation rather than through a preserved paper trail.”

He’ll reinforce this with examples:

• No surviving documents showing Peter explicitly creating the office of Pope. • Early bishops in Rome are ambiguous (Linus? Cletus? Clement? Different lists). • Early Christians did not articulate the modern Catholic doctrine of priesthood or sacramental authority in a systematic way. • The Didache and Clement show local leadership, not a Rome-centered hierarchy.

Strategic goal: Flatten the playing field so LDS claims don't look uniquely “ahistorical.”

2. Joe Heschmeyer’s Counter

Joe will respond by drawing a sharp distinction:

Joe: “Patchy is not the same as contradictory. The early Church record is incomplete, but what we have is highly consistent: bishops, sacraments, Eucharistic realism, apostolic succession, and a Church that sees itself as one continuous visible society. That is positive evidence of continuity.

The LDS model requires discontinuity, meaning the record must show collapse, corruption, or replacement. We see none.”

He will add:

• Ignatius (110 AD) speaks of a threefold ministry: bishop, presbyter, deacon. • Clement (96 AD) appeals to apostolic succession explicitly. • Irenaeus (180 AD) gives a bishop-by-bishop list from the apostles to his day. • No early Christian claims the Church lost authority.

This is a strong position: continuity doesn’t require perfect documentation, just consistency.

3. Jacob Escalates: “Continuity doesn’t equal preserved authority”

This is Jacob’s sharpest offensive move.

Jacob: “You keep assuming continuity equals authority continuity. That’s the very premise in question. Presence of bishops does not prove they kept divine authority. Authority is theological, not merely institutional. The Jewish Sanhedrin continued uninterrupted too—yet Christians believe they lacked the authority Jesus gave His apostles.”

This is clever because it reframes the debate:

• Continuity is neutral. • Authority is metaphysical. • The question is which group inherited Christ’s authority—not which group had the most stable bureaucracy.

He might compare:

• Old Testament priesthood that becomes invalid after Christ. • Samaritan temple continuity that Jews rejected. • Post-apostolic Christian groups that claimed legitimacy but were rejected by later councils.

Strategic goal: Make Catholics prove metaphysical continuity, not just organizational continuity.

4. Joe’s Counter: “Authority claims must match the historical self-understanding”

Joe will respond by grounding authority in how early Christians actually saw themselves:

Joe: “The early Church did not behave like a community whose divine authority had vanished. They believed they held the authority of the apostles, and they acted like it: ordaining, forgiving sins, overseeing doctrine, guarding unity.

If your claim is metaphysical—that authority disappeared—then the people living closest to the events were completely unaware of it. Are we to believe the entire early Church misunderstood its own spiritual collapse?”

This hits hard because:

• LDS claims require a hidden apostasy, unnoticed by Christians at the time. • Catholics have explicit historical claims by early Christians that they retained apostolic authority.

Joe is strongest here.

5. Jacob’s Best Offensive Push: “Silence is not evidence”

This is Jacob’s highest-leverage move:

Jacob: “You treat early Christians’ self-understanding as infallible. But people can be wrong about divine authority. Protestants believe Catholics were wrong for 1,000 years. Catholics believe the Sanhedrin was wrong about its authority.

What we know from history is this: The apostles died. Revelation ceased. Charismatic gifts faded. Corruption increased. Rome’s political influence grew.

Why is it unreasonable to believe divine authority diminished while the institution continued?”

This is the steelman LDS argument at its peak: authority loss is invisible to history because it is metaphysical.

6. Joe’s Closing Move: “Apostasy must be detectable if it breaks Christianity”

Joe responds with a legal-style punch:

Joe: “A lost divine authority would have catastrophic consequences: no valid sacraments, no forgiveness of sins through the Church, no legitimate bishops, no binding teaching. Yet the earliest generations show none of these effects. Instead they show a vibrant, unified, self-consciously apostolic community across the Mediterranean.

You argue that an undetectable, unclaimed, unremarked collapse occurred—right when the historical evidence is strongest for continuity. That is not a historical model. It’s a theological assumption retrofitted onto history.”

This is hard to answer with evidence because LDS claims hinge on revelation rather than history.

7. How the Debate Lands for a Neutral Observer

If you’re scoring based on:

• historical documentation • continuity in real-world institutions • early Christian writings • falsifiability and explanatory power

Joe has the stronger case. Jacob’s best offensive strategy—shifting the debate into metaphysics—helps, but at the cost of giving up historical ground.

If you’re scoring based on:

• internal logic of LDS theology • possibility of metaphysical authority loss • skepticism about institutional self-claims

Jacob looks respectable but not dominant.

If you want, we can now model a version where Jacob pivots to the charismatic-gifts argument (prophecy, tongues, miracles) or the corruption/creedal-development angle and trace how Joe would counter those too.